- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your consistently wrong words placed on this site objectively exist, specifically in the form they take, in large part as a result of your twisted up values.
I have provided the logical argument that, if the universe were devoid of life, nothing could be said to be of value. Therefore, value is not objectively real
That is not a logical argument, first because the universe is not devoid of life. Second, it's a false premise to assume that a thing cannot be objectively real because it wouldn't exist absent it's necessary preconditions. Yours is a baseless assertion that is forgivable in small children who are only beginning to understand the contrast of imagination with reality.
If the universe didn't exist at all, then nothing could be said of material, or of anything else. Therefore material is not objectively real, nor is anything at all. Of course this is non-sense, but it is non-sense in exactly the same form of your supposed logical argument.
This irrefutable refutation of your dribble is usually the point at which you claim to be incapable of reading comprehension, but only as it concerns my argument.
This one's not too bad actually. Though likely dishonest if your pattern of behavior holds. We're using two slightly different conceptions of nature. The biological world vs the quality of the universe.
I'm curious genius, do you know the difference between yourself and a frog?
I have never encountered anyone so wrong about so much in so many different areas. A fictional phenomenon is, for example, and extra sense written in a story that does not actually exist. It's nature is whatever the author decides in that story. Value is an actual phenomenon. So is perception by the way.
If there were no life? That's a big of you fuckin retard, there IS life! 'If there were no matter then nothing in the universe would be material, that makes material a fiction'. Jesus Christ!
I am tired of explaining, in the most simplistic language I can, basic issues to someone who can't even manage to behave like more than a cartoon villain. Jesus you are in rare form today.
There is no "nature" of value where value is not objectively real
That's absurd as usual. Subjective phenomenon exist objectively. But then, I'm arguing with the same idiot who believes that human beings don't have a nature. Do human beings exist objectively? Do you suppose there is anything that has a nature?
I saw a guy take a blotch color vision test wherein numbers are visible only through distinguishing between color variations. After the test he went on about how stupid the test was because they kept asking about numbers but their obviously weren't any numbers. Everyone paying attention understood what happened except for him. You're like him.
Your kind of stupidity isn't usually this far out. 'Labor theory is invalid because it is critiquing capitalism which is invalid'. That's not a valid position at all. If you critique my invalid position, you need to use a VALID position to do so smart guy.
Indeed, no philosophical work accurately describes the nature of value
Not only is it false, but you demonstrate that even you don't believe it later in the very same sentence. Watch
because value is entirely subjective, arbitrary, and relative to the observer.
Oh? Is that the nature of value? Have you accurately describes it?
Hence, capitalism needs defending against labour theory, not the other way around.
Labor theory does not accurately describe the nature of value. It is an invalid theory. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a valid critique of anything at all.
A black man doesn't need to defend the legitimacy of his existence against a white supremacist. The racist theory is invalid.
I pointed out that Plato's ideas are not invalid simply because the Greeks liked to sleep with kids.
I knew we would get to your backpedal eventually, that's why I downvoted your original post (for posterity). It's plain in your post that Plato would be judged for Greek pedo acceptance IF we judged the past by the values of the present. That's what your argument was about afterall.
I articulated this exact point in my first post here, but you are extraordinarily slow..So here we are.
Between you and FM, only FM tried to defend labor theory. But not until after I posted that debate. You, on the other hand can't even grasp the meaning of basic fallacies or the reasons they are invalid.
I suppose it's unfair to expect you to try much of anything. "Try looking around blind man"..Just rude of me .
Nazis weren't fought for their ideas, but for their actions. Similarly, communists who theorize ought to be left alone, stupidity and historical ignorance isn't a crime. But communists who practice? They need to lose thier revolution in the swiftest, most effective way possible. I don't think you have anything to worry about there.
Apparently I have to reiterate what this particular thread is about.
Your collectivism causes you provide an example wherein it would supposedly be reasonable to judge Socrates and Plato for behavior of Greeks generally if not for the time component of the topic. Your near universal use of ad hominem causes you to suppose that, after judging Socrates and Plato for their status as Greeks, you could discount their argument for the same, without regard for their actual arguments.
it would NOT be reasonable
To judge those of the past based on present standards. Do we judge Plato for Greeks accepting pedophiles? No! Because you can't just the past by present standards!
Nevermind that you can't judge Plato for the ills of his group...keep going